Difference between revisions of "Beamline, Radiator and Dump"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* Realistic Thermal Analysis: | * Realistic Thermal Analysis: | ||
# Updated spreadsheet with energy deposition at 9.5 and 5 MeV beam energies (first 2 sheets have data binned in 1mm intervals both in Z direction and radially, third sheet has 5 MeV data in 0.5mm bins). These models assume Gaussian beam with sigma=0.2mm (G. Kharashvili): [[media:radiator_power.xlsx]] | # Updated spreadsheet with energy deposition at 9.5 and 5 MeV beam energies (first 2 sheets have data binned in 1mm intervals both in Z direction and radially, third sheet has 5 MeV data in 0.5mm bins). These models assume Gaussian beam with sigma=0.2mm (G. Kharashvili): [[media:radiator_power.xlsx]] | ||
| − | # Analysis results:[[media:Bubble_Chamber_Thermal_FF082015.pdf]] [[media:Bubble_Chamber_Thermal_FF082015.pptx]] | + | # Analysis results (F. Fors):[[media:Bubble_Chamber_Thermal_FF082015.pdf]] [[media:Bubble_Chamber_Thermal_FF082015.pptx]] |
* Drawing: [[media:JL0015733_rad_dump.pdf]] | * Drawing: [[media:JL0015733_rad_dump.pdf]] | ||
Revision as of 13:20, 19 January 2016
Songsheet and Nomenclature
- Design, installation and released mechanical drawings (dipole + beam line) (change .txt to .tar): media:Bubble_Beamline_Drawings.txt (also here \group\bubble\grames)
- Songsheet and nomenclature media:ACC2008000-1100.pdf
6 mm Cu Radiator/Dump
- Realistic Thermal Analysis:
- Updated spreadsheet with energy deposition at 9.5 and 5 MeV beam energies (first 2 sheets have data binned in 1mm intervals both in Z direction and radially, third sheet has 5 MeV data in 0.5mm bins). These models assume Gaussian beam with sigma=0.2mm (G. Kharashvili): media:radiator_power.xlsx
- Analysis results (F. Fors):media:Bubble_Chamber_Thermal_FF082015.pdf media:Bubble_Chamber_Thermal_FF082015.pptx
- Drawing: media:JL0015733_rad_dump.pdf
- Thermal Analysis: media:ThermalAna_IDL5D01.pdf
- LCW flow to radiator/dump was measured with:
- a flow-meter and was found to be 0.9 GPM
- a bucket and was found to be 2.0 GPM
- LCW temperature is 40°C
Photon Cu Collimator
- Drawing: media:JL0015777_Cu_collimator.pdf
Photon Al Dump
- Drawing: media:JL0009386_Al_photon_dump.pdf
Documentation
- Injector Quick Reference media:injector_quick_reference.pdf
Model
- Elegant (Tennant - September 2015): media:BubbleChamber.ele.Sept.txt media:BubbleChamber.lte.Sept.txt media:BubbleChamber_FIT.ele.txt media:Bubble_Chamber_Twiss_Trends.xlsx
- Elegant (Tennant - December 2013): media:BubbleChamber.ele.txt media:BubbleChamber.lte.txt
- Summary of the Transverse Beam Characterization Measurements in the CEBAF 5 MeV Region: 2014-2015
C. Tennant et al. (18 December 2015): media:TN-15-052.pdf media:TN-15-052.docx
DL Magnet
Old Drawings
- The electron beam hitting the radiator will be roughly 0.2 mm diameter. We will allow for 5 mm diameter sweet spot. Using beam position monitors we will know the beam position on the radiator to about 1 mm.
- This 5 mm diameter and a 10 mm diameter in the center of the bubble chamber will define a cone. This way we can determine the size of the holes in the collimator. This cone extend all the way to the photon dump.
- The table where the radiator and collimator sit will be made of Al and the frame that hold the collimator will be made of Al, too.
- Cu Radiator: media:Bubble_Cu_Radiator.pdf
- Cu Collimator: media:Bubble_Cu_Collimator.pdf
- Al Photon Dump: media:Al_Photon_Dump.pdf
- Questions:
- Is the assumption about the cone fine. Do want the 10 mm diameter be at the center of the bubble chamber or at the end of the chamber entrance collimator.
- Is the 5mm diameter what we want to use?
- Is the size of the photon dump reasonable? Do we need the hole in the photon dump or we can be fine with just a block of Al. Does this whole service any purpose? I thought of it to try to contain any back scattered electrons. Can Argonne make the photon dump?